Washington Treaty Extra Clause.

I have been thinking about some of the negative asspects of the Washington Treaty mainly the loss of experience in designing and constructing battleships. So I was thinking what if the treaty included a clause stating that once the BB & BC tonnages had been reached the signatories were permited to order 1 replacement ship every 2 years provided that when the new ship was launched it's predecessor was sent to the breakers yard.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I can see this happening, but probably every 3-4 years is better. The down side is costs, the British Navy's budget is tapped out, and they don't want to pay for half a new dreadnought each year. Look up the cost of the QE BB's and compare them to the annual budget of the Royal Navy, and the Royal navy construction budget.
 

sharlin

Banned
It would not only be a boon to the RN but the USN and IJN too. Hell even the French would benifit as it would allow them (money depending of course) to replace their DNs which were obsolecent.
 
The problem is that the UK could not afford such a plan. In our timeline, the UK lacked the money to even refit the ships they had and the UK also lacked the money to service the debts owed to the US. The UK policy also shifted, and emphasis was on using cruisers to protect the Empire trade routes. The UK then would not be able to build cruisers.
 
Top